Expunging a criminal conviction in the United States is a rare event and often limited to persons who committed offenses as juveniles or adult misdemeanants. Criminal convictions in Canada, however, are routinely set aside through pardons after offenders have demonstrated a period of crime-free behavior. Sealing an offender’s criminal record, the practice in Canada, is a significant step in his or her reentry into society and official acknowledgment of society’s forgiveness. This exploratory study of pardons in Canada has two clear findings: First, despite the relatively easy process, few individuals with criminal records make application for pardons. Second, of those who do apply, few applications are ever denied, and a very small percentage of successful applicants reoffend. Although setting aside criminal convictions seems inconsistent with the increasing use of collateral consequences for U.S. offenders, taking this approach might contribute to increased public safety in the long term by easing offender reintegration.
Anderson, J. (2003, April). Going straight, transcending the residual self. Paper presented at the Western Social Science Association Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV.
2.
Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (2004). Discrimination in employment on the basis of criminal record. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human%255Frights/criminalrecord/summary.html
3.
Bazemore, G. (1992). On mission statements and reform in juvenile justice: The case for the “balanced approach.”Federal Probation, 56(3), 65-70.
4.
Bonta, J., Rugge, T., & Dauvergne, M. (2003). The reconviction rate of federal offenders. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Solicitor General.
5.
Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 1-127). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Buckler, K. G., & Travis, L. F. (2003). Reanalyzing the prevalence and the social context of collateral consequence statutes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 435-453.
7.
Bush, G. W. (2004). State of the Union Address, 2004. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html
8.
Butterfield, F. (2002, December 19). Inmates go free to help state budget deficits. The New York Times, p. A1-A1.
9.
California Department of Corrections. (2003). Recidivism rates for one and two year follow-up periods for felons paroled to California supervision California Department of Corrections. Sacramento: California Department of Corrections.
10.
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (2002). Cutting correctly—New prison policies for times of fiscal crisis. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.
11.
Cheit, R. E. (2000). Public courts, private records: Accessibility and confidentiality in the Rhode Island court system. Providence, RI: Brown University, Taubman Center for Public Policy.
12.
Correctional Service of Canada. (2004). Performance report: For the period ending March 31, 2004. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
13.
Criminial Records Act, Revised Statutes of Canada (1970).
14.
Davey, J. D. (1998). The politics of prison expansion: Winning elections by waging war on crime. Westport, CT: Praeger.
15.
Deflem, M., & Swygart, A. J. (2001). Comparative criminal justice. In M. A Dupont-Morales, M. K. Hooper, & J. H. Schmidt (Eds.), Handbook of criminal justice administration (pp. 51-68). New York: Marcel Dekker.
16.
Farrington, D. P., Langan, P. A., & Tonry, M. (2004). Cross-national studies in crime and punishment. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
17.
Gannon, M. (2001). Feasibility study on crime comparisons between Canada and the United States. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
18.
Gertz, M., & Myers, L. (1992). Impediments to cross-national research: Problems of reliability and validity. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 16, 57-65.
19.
Glaze, L. E., & Palla, S. (2005). Probation and parole in the United States, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
20.
Grier, A., & Thomas, T. (2001). The employment of ex-offenders and the UK’s new criminal record bureau. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 9, 459-469.
21.
Harris, P. M., & Keller, K. S. (2005). Ex-offenders need not apply: The criminal background check in hiring decisions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 6-30.
22.
Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
23.
Kobil, D. L. (2003). Executive clemency and the American system of justice: How to grant clemency in unforgiving times. Capital University Law Review, 31, 219-241.
24.
Langan, P. A. (2004). United States. In D. P. Farrington, P. A. Langan, & M. Tonry (Eds.), Cross-national studies in crime and punishment (pp. 39-74). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
25.
Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
26.
Legal Action Center. (2004). After prison: Roadblocks to reentry. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from http://www.lac.org/lac/upload/lacreport/LAC_PrintReport.pdf%23search=’legal%2520action%2520center%2520after%2520prison’
27.
Little Hoover Commission. (2003). Back to the community—Safe & sound parole policies. Sacramento: Author.
28.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. New York: American Psychological Association.
29.
Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: New Press.
30.
National Center for Institutions and Alternatives. (2000). The collateral consequences of an individual arrested or convicted in the United States. Baltimore: Author.
31.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (1962). Annulment of a conviction of crime: A model act. Crime & Delinquency, 8, 98-102.
32.
National Criminal History Improvement Program. (2003). Improving criminal history records for background checks. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
33.
National Parole Board of Canada. (2002). Performance report for the period ending March 31, 2002. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
34.
National Parole Board of Canada. (2003). Performance report for the period ending March 31, 2003. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
35.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, P. (2003). Adult criminal court statistics, 2001/2. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
38.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2003). Canadian criminal records information services. Retrieved November 20, 2003, from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/crimrec/lawenf_e.htm
39.
Ruddell, R. (2005). Social disruption, state formation and minority threat: A cross-national study of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 7, 7-28.
40.
Sentencing Project. (1998). Losing the vote: The impact of felony disenfranchisement laws in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
41.
Sprott, J. B., & Doob, A. (1998). Understanding provincial variation in incarceration rates. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 40, 305-322.
42.
Tonry, M. (2004). Thinking about crime: Sense and sensibility in American penal culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
43.
Travis, J. (2005). Prisoner reentry: The iron law of imprisonment. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), Key correctional issues (pp. 64-71). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
44.
Travis, J., & Lawrence, S. (2002). The state of parole in America. Philadelphia: Urban Institute.
45.
Wallace-Capretta, S. (2000). Pardoned offenders in Canada: A statistical analysis. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
46.
Walmsley, R. (2005). World prison population list, sixth edition. London: International Centre for Prison Studies.
47.
Walsh, B. J., & Irving, M. J. (2004). Canada. In D. P. Farrington, P. A. Langan, & M. Tonry (Eds.), Cross-national studies in crime and punishment (pp. 119-150). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
48.
Wilhelm, D. F., & Turner, N. R. (2002). Is the budget crisis changing the way we look at sentencing and incarceration?New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
49.
Young, W., & Brown, M. (1993). Cross-national comparisons of imprisonment. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 17, 1-49.
